Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the data is live from the site schedule, the exact response fields, and an explicit no-hallucination rule for empty results. Minor tension: 'live data from the site schedule' reads slightly more open-world than openWorldHint=false implies, though it is plausibly the provider's own site.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core capability and the no-guess rule are front-loaded and each sentence carries weight. The trailing bilingual Turkish hint restates the English content and the schema examples, which is mildly redundant for a non-Turkish agent but not harmful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers the empty-result path, which is the main ambiguity for a live-data lookup. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'course' parameter, including its own examples, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's Turkish hint repeats the same example pattern ('Flutter', 'Java Spring Boot') without adding matching or format semantics beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — announced upcoming start dates for a named Opendart course — and enumerates exactly what comes back (start date, weekly plan, session hours, total hours, group size, registration link). An agent can tell this is a schedule lookup rather than a catalog search, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_course_details or search_courses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear conditional handling for the empty-result case (say no date is announced, supply the request form link, never guess), which is genuinely useful. However it offers no guidance on when to pick this tool over the sibling course tools, leaving tool selection to inference from the name and purpose sentence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.